New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1887-12-06
pEpUDIATION SUSTAINED
nrcrsIoN IN THE VIRGINIA CASES.
100 srpREME COURT HOLDS THAT THEY ARE SUITS
IN" AGAINST A STATE

rox Dec. 5-when the United States
WASH court reassemblod at noon to- day 1t was evi-
bup'' -. tho large attendance OF spectators ana or
aen' q, the bar that Important decisions were antic
a the presence OF fall the counsel on Doth SIDES
PS virginia habeas corpus cases as we'll as OF the
!" .r. themselves, indicated that among such
peu', vonld be the judgment of the court upon the
oc' hasa of the great Virginia debt controversy.
h'eS' vy,ce Matthews said that he was directed TO
VIC" tho Judgment of the oDurt In the of
h nn r. General Ayers and Commemorative Attorneys
49,. an, McCabe OF Virginia. upon writs of habeas
seo" assry eve bent upon him, and he was fol-
CORPUS u,,b the closest attention throughout the reading
The long and carefully prepared opinion winch occu'
o' are than an hour in delivery.
r stating tie case at great length and announcing
the settled policy of the court to discharge upon
i,. of habeas corpus persons held for contempt in
va. where the lower court was without jurisdiction,
,nstee Matthews said in part
s Question presented really is whether the Circuit
1t rad jurisdiction to entertain the suit in which the
essr complained Of was made The principal con-
uton ON the part OF the petitioners is that the suit,
tIo;nallv against them Is In fact and in law suit
nst the State OF Virginia whose officers they are.
'rjjction entertain which Is denied by the XItA
.nendment 10 the Constitution.
rrsce Matthews then reviewed carefully and in detail
tho decisions OF the courts in relied upon by
counsel for the bondhOlors TO show that the suit not
vi,,,n the prohibition OF the XIth Amendment, and
showed in respects such differ from the
If the petitioners Resuming he said:
The question, therefore, is narrowed to the single
iuauiry of the equitable right of the compliments TO
rpon the petitioners against bringing any such suits
a. law The relief sought is against the defendants
IN their individual but in their representative capacity
The acts sought be restrained the bringing of suits
br the state of Virginia in its and for its
use II the state had been made defendant to this bill
BY name II would have been represented by the same
In contracts between state and individuals by virtue
OF the Nth Amendment to the Constitution. said Justice
Matthew'S there being remedy by a suit against the
the contract Is substantially without
cep which arises out OF the honor and good iath OF
tie itself and taese not subject TO coercion
Although state the inception of the contract
have consented TO subject itself to suit 1t Hay suose
guently withdraw that consent ana resume us ollgna
Immunity without any violation of the obligation OF Its
contract in the Constiaticnal sense Ihe very onleot
and purpose OF the Alth Amendment were 10 prevent
the indignuy Of subiecting state TO the coerclve
process judicial tribunals at the instance OF private
parties Ii was thought to he neither becoming nor con-
ii the ,eVeIa states invested with that large
rcsuum OF sovereignty which had not been delegated To
the United staos. should he summoned as defendants 10
the complaints OF private persons or mat the
their public affairs should be subject to control by the
mandates of Judicial tribunals, without their consent
ana in favor OF individual Interests.
By fair and liberal Interpretation Of the Xlth Amend
cn it must he held to cover not only suits brought
scuatives where the state though not named as such 8
nevertheless the only real party against when alone
effectively operates But this is not intended IN any way
to mpinge upon the principle which iusiifes suits
authority OF unconstitutional legislation by the STATE are
guilty Of personal trespass aud wrongs justice Mat
If need not be appreended that the construction APP
piled to the Xlth Amendment IN tins case VIII elloaIrass
eases where State officers are guilty OF acting III N3
lqon of them because the United states deals with
Them as individuals owing obedience to It's authority
Tie penalties of dsObedcnce be visited upon state
officers without regard 10 the character IN which they
assume the nature OF the exemption they may
plead. Nothing can be intorpOsed between The ndivd
nal and the obligation lie owes 10 the Constitution ana
laws OF the Cnied states If. therefore State ohcer
under color of State comes into conflict with Inc
superior authority and valid law OF the United states nc
stripped OF his representative character and subjected
to the consequences of his COnduO The state has no
power to impart 10 him any immunity from response
tlity to the supreme law OF the United states
The opinion concludes as follows:
In cOMtradstnctOn 10 these classes or cases Tor inc
reasons given adjugc the sut OF Cooper c al against
Ma.vc et al. in which the iniUncfions were granted
against the present petitioners 10 be SUIT against tAe
STATE OF Virginia II IT, therefore within the prohibition
of the XIjh Amendment. by the terms of that pr0ysion
IL is To- which The Judicial power or the United
States does not extend The Circuit Court was without
mi, LECTION TO entertain it, All the proceedings in the
exercise OF the jurisdiction which II assumed are nun
aud void TIE orders forbdding tue petitioners 70 Dfhg
the suits for bringing which they were ad)higed III con
teMVt OF authority II had no power to make Inc
orders sdiuig1ng then. In contempt are equally vod
and their imprisonment is without authority OF law.
ordered therefore, that the petitioners be DIS
charged"
As soon as this announcement was made many OF the
spectators begin filing ont ard the Marshal had to rap
Tor order several during the reading of the early
PORTIONS OF Justice Fields opinion dissenting io soue
OF tie views expressed IN the oNloh rcdu ny JuHtIVc
Mail cVs flouCn not from the conclusion reached
Justice Harlan said lie adhere 10 his disS'h opn-
ions IN the of AstOn against Greenh@w ioulsdhs
o.a opinion OF the judgment IN tnis case ne e1-
pressed The view that the suits Drought ID TAO trUt
ourt Of the United states were no. SUITS aSanst me
ate 81 Virginia within the meaning OF the kim Anend-
ncnL